Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?

[cupid_stunt]

I think my ideas about how businesses work are probably a bit old-fashioned. My goal would probably be to get solvent well before taking on the world. I’d be freaked out by the idea of having a bit of a bump and not being able to pay my people.

Clearly they have the backers/investors that think their gamble will pay-off long term, but with ever increasing competition in the streaming market, they may need to change their business model in order to survive.

It's not unlike what Murdoch did in launching Sky-TV, in the early years it saw a haemorrhage of cash from News Corporation funds. and almost took the whole lot down, but he turned it around just in time, and the rest is history.

 

[weltweit]

..
It's not unlike what Murdoch did in launching Sky-TV, in the early years it saw a haemorrhage of cash from News Corporation funds. and almost took the whole lot down, but he turned it around just in time, and the rest is history.

In its initial incarnation when it was against BSB I think it was, Murdochs operation was in Portacabins while the others blew loads of money on expensive HQs etc. Murdoch got a working system on the market first, he also borrowed so much the banks couldn't afford to foreclose.

 

[mauvais]

Clearly they have the backers/investors that think their gamble will pay-off long term,

This is old fashioned thinking too. All you potentially need is a sequence of capital lenders who think you'll last long enough for them to get something from it, not a holistic success, and a sequence of people willing to buy your shares in the belief that they can only go up.

 

[scifisam]

Oh God I'm watching a show on 40D for the first time in years and the compulsory ad breaks are extremely annoying.

One thing about the TV licence compared to Netflix etc is that you only need a TV and Freeview and they're really easy to get cheap or sometimes free (people literally give them away, though having a car helps when it comes to collecting the TV). Netflix also requires home broadband and that's an added cost.

 

[PursuedByBears]

Oh God I'm watching a show on 40D for the first time in years and the compulsory ad breaks are extremely annoying.

I just can't watch anything on 4od for this reason

 

[cupid_stunt]

Same here, I can't watch anything on catch-up services from the commercial channels. I always record anything I am interested in watching, so I can skip the ads.

 

[Azrael]

This. I worked on radio, now I work on sport. None of it has anything to do with politics. Both of these things serve millions of people for astonishingly low relative costs, and they themselves are only part of it. It's all under increasing threat not because of some deserved payback on current affairs bias, but because a right wing government hates it.

I can certainly understand the frustration at news and linked departments sullying the name of the entire Corporation. As an insider, how would you recommend the BBC be restructured to put a stop to it?

 

[mauvais]

I can certainly understand the frustration at news and linked departments sullying the name of the entire Corporation. As an insider, how would you recommend the BBC be restructured to put a stop to it?

I wouldn't have the first idea but I doubt 'restructuring' would bode well, whatever the intent; what you seem to be suggesting would only enable overall dismantling. Priorities to my mind, given the current political situation, would be to much better promote all of the 'other' stuff we do well by most people's estimation, but the organisation is dreadful at talking about itself.

For example this long-recycled diagram is (mostly) true, and to some extent helpful, but it omits a whole bunch of things and pisses people off:



and it's one of the better things the business does in this respect.

 

[Azrael]

I wouldn't have the first idea but I doubt 'restructuring' would bode well, whatever the intent; what you seem to be suggesting would only enable overall dismantling. Priorities to my mind, given the current political situation, would be to much better promote all of the 'other' stuff we do well by most people's estimation, but the organisation is dreadful at talking about itself.

For example this long-recycled diagram is (mostly) true, and to some extent helpful, but it omits a whole bunch of things and pisses people off:



and it's one of the better things the business does in this respect.

To clarify, by "restructuring," I wasn't talking about breaking up the BBC, but the opposite: changing the Corporation's internal structures to introduce real accountability and put a stop to the News department's antics. For whatever reason, the current Board has been woefully unable or unwilling to put a stop to the political bias infesting News and current affairs, and staff in other departments apparently have no means to bring about change. How can this be put right?

While I've stated my own opinions -- I'd make the vast majority of the BBC subscription funded, with a possible exception for radio and unique programming like BBC Three / Four -- I'm genuinely interested in alternatives.

 

[mauvais]

To clarify, by "restructuring," I wasn't talking about breaking up the BBC, but the opposite: changing the Corporation's internal structures to introduce real accountability and put a stop to the News department's antics. For whatever reason, the current Board has been woefully unable or unwilling to put a stop to the political bias infesting News and current affairs, and staff in other departments apparently have no means to bring about change. How can this be put right?

While I've stated my own opinions -- I'd make the vast majority of the BBC subscription funded, with a possible exception for radio and unique programming like BBC Three / Four -- I'm genuinely interested in alternatives.

There's about 19,000 employees so most people, like me, will have no idea about how current affairs broadcasting is actually operated in any way relevant to political bias.

Most of what it technically needs is in place. Everyone in any function is issued with a big brick of a book, the Editorial Guidelines, basically policy on what you can do and say. It's probably public, I'm not sure. If everyone were equally held to account on this it might help. Within recruitment, retention etc as I've experienced it, diversity and equality are taken seriously and it significantly outperforms most private sector organisations, so again there's no reason why there can't be diversity of opinion and background in current affairs. There has been identification of some failings (like 'balance') but not necessarily decisive action, but then this should be no surprise for such a complex oil tanker of an organisation.

I don't know what's feasible in terms of a funding model but I don't like subscription. Public broadcasting is an important public service that should inform, educate and entertain the population, and even an imperfect implementation is better than something designed to benefit its selective subscribers. Lots of decisions, particularly investment, are made with holistic audiences in mind - the viewers/listeners that it doesn't currently have - and that goes out of the window if the remit is merely to provide to opt-in fee-payers. General taxation is one option but this has historically been avoided because it's even more subject to government manipulation.

 

[Saul Goodman]

There's about 19,000 employees so most people, like me, will have no idea about how current affairs broadcasting is actually operated in any way relevant to political bias.

Most of what it technically needs is in place. Everyone in any function is issued with a big brick of a book, the Editorial Guidelines, basically policy on what you can do and say. It's probably public, I'm not sure. If everyone were equally held to account on this it might help. Within recruitment, retention etc as I've experienced it, diversity and equality are taken seriously and it significantly outperforms most private sector organisations, so again there's no reason why there can't be diversity of opinion and background in current affairs. There has been identification of some failings (like 'balance') but not necessarily decisive action, but then this should be no surprise for such a complex oil tanker of an organisation.

I don't know what's feasible in terms of a funding model but I don't like subscription. Public broadcasting is an important public service that should inform, educate and entertain the population, and even an imperfect implementation is better than something designed to benefit its selective subscribers. Lots of decisions, particularly investment, are made with holistic audiences in mind - the viewers/listeners that it doesn't currently have - and that goes out of the window if the remit is merely to provide to opt-in fee-payers. General taxation is one option but this has historically been avoided because it's even more subject to government manipulation.

It's a tricky one, isn't it. On the one hand you have a company who have put themself forward as the de facto source of media, whilst insisting on being the arbiter of the TV license hammer. They've (resulted in) incarcerated people who failed to adhere to a contract that they never signed. People hiding behind their doors, last they meet the license bouncer... Etc.
On the other hand, we have people who don't wish to be bullied into paying for a service they don't use... You set of fascist bastards! Fuck the fuck off and earn your keep, rather than taking single mothers to court, because they can't afford what you think you're worth!

On the other hand... Fuck off and stand on your own two feet!

None of this was aimed at anyone here... Just a rant.

 

[weltweit]

The reason I think the licence fee should be abolished is because it is unfair. At the moment I am a single person living alone with one television and I'm expected to pay the full licence fee.

I am paying the same amount for my single television that a couple with children who are both working and have perhaps 3 televisions are paying. That seems unfair to me.

And it isn't just my situation, an unemployed person on benefits is also expected to pay the full fee when for them any extra expense is going to be felt hard.

I would be quite a lot happier if the BBC was funded through ordinary taxation. It could be ring-fenced for the BBC in such a way that political interference in editorial matters was eliminated.

I rest my case.

 

[Riklet]

Id like the BBC to pay a maximum salary of 36k to anyone. Clear out the dead wood and the waste and put all the jobs outside of the main cities and 'cultural hubs'.

Do the work for the prestige and a decent enough salary or fuck off (they could do so much better than trying to copy the other channels). Even managers and IT types could be compensated with holidays and other perks rather than salaries. I dont see why anyone should get rich working there. As for all the celebrity presenters... it's a busted format. Id sooner see the money invested in getting talent from the general public on TV, inspiring young people, making media more accessible and making some decent TV shows (Peaky Blinders, Blue Planet 2, the occasional film and Graham Norton... not seen much else decent for years).

Why should the public compulsarily pay for a load of dross output, bloated salaries and government news? Anyway I dont pay cos someone else has paid... but I wouldn't anyway, not in it's shit corrupt current model. To make it fair, should be either an opt in service, a free service or paid for by taxes rather than the license fee.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The reason I think the licence fee should be abolished is because it is unfair. At the moment I am a single person living alone with one television and I'm expected to pay the full licence fee.

I am paying the same amount for my single television that a couple with children who are both working and have perhaps 3 televisions are paying. That seems unfair to me.

And it isn't just my situation, an unemployed person on benefits is also expected to pay the full fee when for them any extra expense is going to be felt hard.

I would be quite a lot happier if the BBC was funded through ordinary taxation. It could be ring-fenced for the BBC in such a way that political interference in editorial matters was eliminated.

I rest my case.

For a while, I was uncertain as to whether the BBC should be a state sponsored organisation, paid for by the taxpayer, but, of course it should. It should be paid for via direct taxation, whilst being controlled by an independent, impartial body.
At this stage of our humanity, everybody should have access to basic, essential services, and, I believe, in this day and age, broadband and TV are about as basic and essential as any other service.
If the likes of Amazon want us to buy from them, they should be paying for all internet access (not just amazon), and if we're having a compulsory, non-subscription, media outlet, then that should be absolutely impartial, and should absolutely be held to account, rather than the way it is now, which seems more akin to the American federal reserve than it does to a media outlet for the people.
Prove your worth, or STFU.

 

[weltweit]

I wonder how much it costs to collect the licence fee. There must be some kind of a cost associated with administering it and my bet is that it's quite high.

We already have mechanisms for collecting taxes so if the licence fee was abolished the cost of administering it it would be saved.

 

[Marty1]

Don't you mean Labour arselickers?

Don’t you mean pro-EU arse lickers?

edit: probably the same thing.

 

[mauvais]

Id like the BBC to pay a maximum salary of 36k to anyone. Clear out the dead wood and the waste and put all the jobs outside of the main cities and 'cultural hubs'.

Do the work for the prestige and a decent enough salary or fuck off (they could do so much better than trying to copy the other channels). Even managers and IT types could be compensated with holidays and other perks rather than salaries. I dont see why anyone should get rich working there.

I earn more than your arbitrary £36k but I could earn about 30% more not working for the BBC, so this already happens. We do have some benefits that make up for it, mostly it's work/life balance and the nature of the work.

If you want skilled people to produce good products and services then you need to pay them accordingly, it's not a charity. I'm also curious as to who you've identified as being the deadwood and waste, because everyone I work with is incredibly smart, well-rounded and doing a great job, actually much more so than at other major engineering companies.

 

[Riklet]

edited my reply out by mistake... can a mod see what I wrote before and add it back in pretty please??

 

[two sheds]

Haven't read the thread but I wonder whether abolishing the BBC would lead to a great increase in pay-per-view programmes which would actually push up how much people spend on watching.

 

[scifisam]

I earn more than your arbitrary £36k but I could earn about 30% more not working for the BBC, so this already happens. We do have some benefits that make up for it, mostly it's work/life balance and the nature of the work.

If you want skilled people to produce good products and services then you need to pay them accordingly, it's not a charity. I'm also curious as to who you've identified as being the deadwood and waste, because everyone I work with is incredibly smart, well-rounded and doing a great job, actually much more so than at other major engineering companies.

Aren't most of the big salaries going to people employed by production companies anyway? And I doubt that you could impose a £36kpa salary somehow on the actors who pull in big viewing figures on things like Killing Eve that make the company back by deals with the US, if you count them as part of the Beeb.

Including basic broadband with the license fee is a fantastic idea though, like Saul sort of said. Not sure it's allowed by law, but given that license fee payers are paying for internet only channels, it would help.

 

[mauvais]

Aren't most of the big salaries going to people employed by production companies anyway? And I doubt that you could impose a £36kpa salary somehow on the actors who pull in big viewing figures on things like Killing Eve that make the company back by deals with the US, if you count them as part of the Beeb.

Including basic broadband with the license fee is a fantastic idea though, like Saul sort of said. Not sure it's allowed by law, but given that license fee payers are paying for internet only channels, it would help.

Pay for 'talent' is not my chosen hill to die on, but you're right, any kind of set limit would be a gift to the competition, who would immediately migrate to commercial entities. In some cases that may be no bad thing, as it would allow new entrants to flourish, but it would always be a conveyor belt as they too would move on.

I don't know a thing about broadcast programming or production, but a lot of time, energy and ironically money is spent figuring out whether any given endeavour offers value for money to audiences. In fact the closest thing to waste that I can see is the effort lost to indecision and self-control, both in terms of activities and layers of job functions, when organisations that don't necessarily have to do that (or do it differently) would just crack on. It's not objectively wrong, and it produces some good outcomes, but it reinforces the inability of the organisation to adapt or move quickly.

 

[Sasaferrato]

The BBC recently announced 450 job losses in the news division. Perhaps naively, I would have expected the news division to be below that number to begin with.

Sorry, but extorting money to pay Lineker over a million to present a football programme makes the BBC untenable to a lot of people, me included. Don't forget that they were paying Ross £12m.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I earn more than your arbitrary £36k but I could earn about 30% more not working for the BBC, so this already happens. We do have some benefits that make up for it, mostly it's work/life balance and the nature of the work.

If you want skilled people to produce good products and services then you need to pay them accordingly, it's not a charity. I'm also curious as to who you've identified as being the deadwood and waste, because everyone I work with is incredibly smart, well-rounded and doing a great job, actually much more so than at other major engineering companies.

The deadwood myth is one of those things used to justify privatisation usually.

The svelte agile private co vs the lumbering public service.

Because private companies are always efficient and prompt

 

[Sasaferrato]

Haven't read the thread but I wonder whether abolishing the BBC would lead to a great increase in pay-per-view programmes which would actually push up how much people spend on watching.

If the BBC are so confident in the quality of their output, being funded by advertising shouldn't be a problem.

What I would do if I were PM with a large majority is make TV either or, either you charge a subscription, or, you show adverts. Not both.

 

[weltweit]

I don't want adverts on the BBC.

If it has to remain the state broadcaster in order to avoid adverts so be it.

But my proposal of funding it through taxation would not require it to show adverts.

 

[mauvais]

The BBC recently announced 450 job losses in the news division. Perhaps naively, I would have expected the news division to be below that number to begin with.

Naive indeed, or just unreasonable. It's about 3,500.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Naive indeed, or just unreasonable. It's about 3,500.

 

[DexterTCN]

I don't want adverts on the BBC.

If it has to remain the state broadcaster in order to avoid adverts so be it.

But my proposal of funding it through taxation would not require it to show adverts.

Yeah well your proposal can fuck off (no personal offence).

Firstly...there's nothing that doesn't have adverts...bbc just has adverts for the bbc.

Secondly...you want it...you pay for it. The bbc is in no way a public service. It may do a lot of things but it's main fodder is shite. You want to tax people for bargain hunt? Weakest link? Celebrity masterchef?

I think not. That shit is in no way taxable.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

It is one of the largest news organisations on the planet though, so that headcount isnt excessive.

 

[donkyboy]

It's a fucking unnecessary tax on the poor and everyone. What nonesense to suggest commercial TV cannot put out content as good as the BBC